The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1887-01-29
Is Prohibition Possible by Virtue of
Law

as many times answered in ac.
cordance with the opinion Of hin,
who gives the reply.
If we were to Judge by the earn.
estness and apparent honesty will
which many Of the enemies of The
liquor traffic advocate the passage
by the law makers of the variou,
States, of first one measure, thcr
another, we would be impelled tC
the belief that some one of the
measures would serve the purpose,
and the traffic with all its concom.
liant evils and abuses would disap.
pear forever.
Without reverting to the various
measures adopted by the kingly
governments of the old World
with their history of failure and
disappointment, we will content
ourselves with the lessons to be
gathered from the history of the
Legislation Of this Country.
Without having the history i'm.
mediately before us, the first i'm.
portant legislation of this kind
that we now call to mind was
what was known as the "Fifteen
Gallon" law of Massachusetts,
This law was passed TO crafty the
whims Of the self constituted guar
dians of the "poor," and it was
sought to prevent the indulgence
of the appetite for ardent drink
by those who were unable to pur-
chase fifteen gallons or more at one
time. 1t was hoped and believed
by the friends of the law that they
had at last invented a legal remedy
for drunkenness and would ulti-
mately be able to drive it without
the limits of the State. The his
tory of the results of this law were
in directly opposition direction.
Drunkenness increased while dis
content on the part of those who
yielded a reluctant obedience to
the mandates of the law and a total
disregard by those whom it was
most intended to benefit, led to it's
early repeal.
The next attempt of Importance
was in the State of New York.
This was substantially the same as
the "Local Option" laws of the pres
ent time, and was thought by its
friends, of that time, to be SOW
ereign remedy for the abuses COM
planned of, but after fair trial the
law was abandoned as useless for
the suppression Of drunkenness,
and disastrous to the general bu-
siness of the State. OF its op-
Grafton G. J. Beebe, n writer of the
Times, says: "Tavern property
was greatly deprecated in value,
while owners of property encumb-
cred, had the mortgages foreciosed
by cautious creditors. A calm sur
vey OF the effects of this law in
New York, where it was adopted
putin force, and invariably repeal
ed, can reveal no good results what
ever, in return for thesmillions of
nvnanS;t,rn onI Loose, o%fo~,Io,4
and consequent on its adoption and
enforcement. On the contrary, in
temperance had greatly increased
and the amount of liquors consum-
ed was greater than before.
This law like the one in Mass
achusetts was of short duration be-
ing'repealed by the Legislature
succeeding the one that passed the
enactment. The most widely
known and renowned Of laws on
the subject was that known as the
Main "Liquor Law" and passed
by tho Legislature of that State
during the session of 1857 This
law was the most stringent OF any
hitherto passed upon the subject,
and is too well known to need COM
ment. Its peculiar provision con-
sisted in wholly prohibiting the
sale of liquors by any except the
bonded and sworn agents of the
State, specially appointed for that
purpose, and authorized to sell for
medicinal andmechanical purposes
only.
This law virtually as
passed remained in force
for nearly quarter of a cen
tuary, and was the pride and boast
of the friends Of prohibition in
every State in the Union, and it
was not suspected Of weakness un-
til the fact was made patent by the
reports of the Revenue Collector
showing the glaring difference be-
tween the amount of liquor sold by
the licensed agents and the total
amount sold and consumed in the
State. 1t is now admitted that
during the whole time of the eX-
istence OF this law, liquor could be